New York City's Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has vowed to overhaul the city's math curriculum, citing concerns over its impact on struggling students and calls for a more fundamental approach to teaching arithmetic.
Under Samuels' plan, known as NYC Solves, teachers will focus on ensuring students have a solid grasp of multiplication and division before diving into the more complex concepts emphasized by the current reforms. This is in contrast to the current emphasis on "inquiry-based" group work, real-world problems, and discussion, which some educators have criticized for being too open-ended and not providing adequate scaffolding for struggling students.
Samuels acknowledges that the current curriculum has had a mixed impact, with scores showing small gains but also highlighting areas where students are falling behind. He emphasizes the importance of "automaticity," or the ability to recall basic math facts instantly, which he says is crucial for success in upper grades.
The new approach will not fundamentally change the curriculum, but rather address what Samuels sees as the biggest issues with its implementation. Educators and parents have long criticized the rollout of NYC Solves, citing that students with disabilities and those learning English were disproportionately affected by the transition to more "inquiry-based" teaching methods.
While some educators welcome the changes, others are skeptical about the efficacy of the new approach without adequate support for teachers. As the debate over math education continues, Samuels' efforts aim to strike a balance between innovation and ensuring all students have access to a solid foundation in arithmetic.
Under Samuels' plan, known as NYC Solves, teachers will focus on ensuring students have a solid grasp of multiplication and division before diving into the more complex concepts emphasized by the current reforms. This is in contrast to the current emphasis on "inquiry-based" group work, real-world problems, and discussion, which some educators have criticized for being too open-ended and not providing adequate scaffolding for struggling students.
Samuels acknowledges that the current curriculum has had a mixed impact, with scores showing small gains but also highlighting areas where students are falling behind. He emphasizes the importance of "automaticity," or the ability to recall basic math facts instantly, which he says is crucial for success in upper grades.
The new approach will not fundamentally change the curriculum, but rather address what Samuels sees as the biggest issues with its implementation. Educators and parents have long criticized the rollout of NYC Solves, citing that students with disabilities and those learning English were disproportionately affected by the transition to more "inquiry-based" teaching methods.
While some educators welcome the changes, others are skeptical about the efficacy of the new approach without adequate support for teachers. As the debate over math education continues, Samuels' efforts aim to strike a balance between innovation and ensuring all students have access to a solid foundation in arithmetic.
. I mean, don't get me wrong, the whole inquiry-based thing has its pros, but when it comes down to it, some of these kids are just not getting the math skills they need to succeed in upper grades 
. And yeah, I know some educators are saying that's too rigid, that we gotta be more flexible and adaptable 
. But what if we're being too flexible? What if we're letting students down by not giving 'em the solid foundation they deserve? Samuels is trying to strike a balance here, which I think is a good thing. And let's be real, these scores have been pretty mixed, so he might just be onto something 
. Plus, automaticity is key, you know? It's like, once you master the basics, it's way easier to tackle more advanced concepts 
.
but seriously, why did they even start with an inquiry-based approach? I mean, isn't that just code for "we're not sure what we're doing" 
and now they're trying to go back to basics because scores are still bad? seems like a huge waste of resources to me 
anyway, i'm all for innovation, but let's make sure we're not just band-aiding the problems without fixing the underlying issues 
A math curriculum overhaul 
- remember, multiplication tables are like memes: you gotta know 'em by heart 
.
. We all know how much time and effort goes into planning lessons, so it's gotta be tough to adjust to something that's gonna change their workflow. Still, if it means more students are getting a solid grasp of math, I'm all for it 
anyway back to this NYC Solves thing... so it sounds like they're saying that we gotta teach the basics first before getting all fancy on math, i guess? but honestly I don't understand why some people are making such a big deal out of it... like isn't the point of education just to help us figure stuff out? 
. And I'm all for automaticity - if my kid can recall 2+2 without even thinking about it, she can focus on the cool stuff 
. And what about students with disabilities or learning English? They're already facing so many barriers in education... shouldn't we be focusing on supporting them, not just reformatting the curriculum?
I hope Samuels' plan addresses those issues and doesn't leave too many students in the dust 
It feels like we're more worried about being 'right' than actually making a difference. 
. But at the same time, I'm worried about how this change will affect teachers who aren't used to it 
?